Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Gifted, Talented and Separated (NYC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/e...re-divided-by-gifted-label-and-race.html
Gifted, Talented and Separated
In One School, Students Are Divided by Gifted Label — and Race
By AL BAKER
New York Times
January 12, 2013

IT is just a metal door with three windows, the kind meant to keep the clamor of an elementary school hallway from piercing a classroom’s quiet. Other than paint the color of bubble gum, it is unremarkable.

But the pink door on Room 311 at Public School 163 on the Upper West Side represents a barrier belied by its friendly hue. On one side are 21 fourth graders labeled gifted and talented by New York City’s school system. They are coursing through public school careers stamped accelerated.

And they are mostly white.

On the other side, sometimes sitting for reading lessons on the floor of the hallway, are those in the school’s vast majority: They are enrolled in general or special education programs.

They are mostly children of color.

“The only way it even conceivably can work is to give young poor kids the same sort of boost up that young affluent kids get, which is to make sure these kids get an excellent preschool education, make sure these kids get tutoring, make sure these parents know at what time in the circuit they are supposed to prepare their kids for what. And that is taking on a much larger task than tinkering with a test.”
..

I disagree. I believe in education. I think they should raise expectations in the everyday classrooms. No one is too destroyed by kindergarten or first grade that they can't be taught. I think you can take a kid at age five with no previous academics and begin giving them a good education. Apparently it must be harder in the real world than it is in my thoughts.
In my thoughts there is a great education available at any level. There are skills and content that will progressively raise the ability from any level to another level. If you feed the knowledge at the students level they will increase their appetite, and strength. I'm liking that analogy from this forum that compares educating a person with feeding that person.
..
Some teachers at P. S. 163 use the word “enriched,” rather than “accelerated,” to describe the academics of the gifted programs.
..
This is part of the problem. Schools want to entertain kids more than educate them. A good education would make studying interesting and rewarding in and of itself. The focus should be on getting an education if you are going to school. Would it help to make that very clear?
..
“In the gifted classrooms that I’ve been in, the majority of kids are reading at grade level or beyond, and they can write well, and then so much time is not spent on basic skills so they can spend more time on content and on comparing historical eras,” Professor Folsom said. “They are then able to do the more deep thinking work because less time has to be spent on the fundamental skills.”
..
See?! Quit trying to be engaging and start teaching. But then I remind myself that it must be harder than I thought or we wouldn't be reading about these problems.
..
She said her experience was that many of the children in her general education classes were at grade level or below and did not get the same support from their parents that the children in the gifted classes got. “They’re tougher kids,” she said of the general education students in the school. “They’re very street-savvy. They don’t have the background; their parents are hard on them but don’t know what to do with them.”
..
Well, that's why they send them to school. If the parents are tough on the kids then the teachers should be too. They should be selling the kids on education by raising the bar and showing the kids in the short term what a good education can accomplish. See how much your skills have grown?! Who wouldn't want to be smarter?

If the G&T classes are working well for some families, and the general education classes are said to be failing other families, why don't they fix those classes? Every article posted here is beating that same drum, "That school is better, not everyone can have it. Destroy the school." Why do these articles never say, "That school has what more people want. There's not enough to go around. Let's copy it."

I hate to say, but the schools don't really know how to teach the gifted or the disadvantaged. It's because they want to give everybody the same amount of time in school.
I really hate saying this, because it's all been said before. . ability grouping, acceleration, failing a grade and repeating. These are the most obvious answers for a school system to give an education. Honestly, the online, adaptable, far-reaching education options that are only getting better seems to have more potential for a universally better education.

I began this article with great interest; it basically describes DD's school. However, I didn't get very much out of it in the end. It seemed scattered.


This is absolutely accurate at her school. They don't need to spend the time on drilling and repetition; as a result, the kids get "more" in a lot of ways. Honestly, this is a huge advantage of the school for us. I'm not sure how you make this problem go away.


I actually agree with this. Early childhood education is so important, but it's underfunded and the quality is incredibly uneven. DS is in a program this year where the teachers are obviously trained and they really work on these basic skills in depth. It's too easy for him, but he doesn't care and I see the value of it to the other kids. The program my DD was in was very different--great on creativity, but I don't think they got the skills that are being reinforced at DS's school. The kids mostly ptobably didn't need it, though.

Part of the problem with preschools is that different populations need different kinds of preschool. Kids from advantaged backgrounds don't need counting and letter activities...thay have that already, and in fact it may burn them out. Other kids desperately need to be brought to the same level these wealthier kids will already be at when they start K.

Quote:
“In the gifted classrooms that I’ve been in, the majority of kids are reading at grade level or beyond, and they can write well, and then so much time is not spent on basic skills so they can spend more time on content and on comparing historical eras,” Professor Folsom said. “They are then able to do the more deep thinking work because less time has to be spent on the fundamental skills.”


This is absolutely accurate at her school. They don't need to spend the time on drilling and repetition; as a result, the kids get "more" in a lot of ways. Honestly, this is a huge advantage of the school for us. I'm not sure how you make this problem go away.

......

I honestly think it's because people want to give content before skills. Why should they worry about spending time comparing content if the can't read, write, and add? I know I'm mostly alone in saying this because even in the preschool or homeschool discussions many people say to not hold a kid back to their weakest skill, which is always in the skills not the content area. But I think as flawed as the education system is it still represents centuries of analysis and experience and I'm sorry, but reading, writing, and arithmatic comes first. After that, the world's your oyster. I don't think you're doing any favors rushing somebody to "the meat" without laying the foundation (which the school system says is reading, riting, and rithmatic). If you can't do that then that's where your tome and effort needs to be spent. Just an opinion.

So, your kid can read, write, and add. They're ready for some meat and bones. The kid who can not read and write does not have that surplus of time and effort available, they need to take first things first.

This is such a complex and difficult topic. We see this in our local, self-contained gifted program which accelerates kids by a grade level. Our district wants to get rid of it and have everyone be together, the gifted kids being enriched while the kids at the bottom are enriched by having gifted classmates.
Blah, blah, blah.
This year, our school entered Program Project Improvement under NCLBI since the minority and lower SES kids did not improve as much on test scores at the federal government wants them to, even though their scores outscore similar such groups anywhere and our school is in the top 4% of schools in California.
I do think parents are ultimately the driving force behind kids" success (or lack of success) in school. You can have a great school but if the parents are not trying to keep their children on task, doing the homework at home or work in class, etc., you will not have the same sort of success.

But is it about skills? Is it about early learning? Maybe it is more about having a fire to learn, a value system that appreciates education, and a healthy curiosity?

Why does Finland do so well considering their schooling starts at 7?

Does their school not start with the three Rs? How can you learn, do your homework, or investigate further if you can not read or write? You can, but it's a lot more effort for those around you and I don't think it's sustainable. Off to google of Switzerland starts with the 3r's once they do get to school, although I'd bet the three r's is at the core if any education plan in modern history.

ah, look, Switzerland might be very successful because they have ability grouping and career tracking- (so says wikipedia)

quote:
After primary schools, the pupils split up according their abilities and intentions of career paths
..
It is obligatory for all children to attend school for at least 9 years
...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Switzerland

My guess is that it's a complex mixture of things. But you certainly don't have a level playing field when the children start school: in the UK, we observe a large (more than 1 year: I've seen 2 years claimed) developmental difference by the age of 5 between children in the highest and lowest socio-economic status families. I think it's learning in the broadest sense: learning to talk, listen, ask questions, look at books, express needs, share, ...

Some of the things Finland does well are: nine months' paid maternity leave (well, the first few months are specifically maternity leave, the rest can be split as the parents like); free full-time high-quality daycare and early education from the age of 8 months; teaching as a high status profession (very competitive to enter).

(That said, the countries that do well in international standardised testing are diverse; Finland's model clearly isn't the only one.)

“The only way it even conceivably can work is to give young poor kids the same sort of boost up that young affluent kids get, which is to make sure these kids get an excellent preschool education, make sure these kids get tutoring, make sure these parents know at what time in the circuit they are supposed to prepare their kids for what."

I say: No, No, No! This is not society's job. It's not the govenment's job. The parents should be responsible. Society needs to stop reinforcing this idea that "someone else" will take care of my kids; someone else will educate them. Until SOCIETY insists that education comes first, nothing will change. I was "low SES" growing up. I never had preschool or tutoring, nobody told my parents when to prepare me for what. I taught myself to read at 3. I went to Kindergarten at 4 because my parents didn't know what else to do with me. In contrast, my sister (only 13 months older), didn't learn to read until 2nd grade, ended up repeating a grade. I graduated second in our class. She graduated in the bottom 10%.

Same parents, same upbringing. Kids are just different! It's not discrimination if it's true. Again, the sports analogy: if you had a gifted quarterback or point guard, would you make him (or her) sit on the bench while you're least talented player tried to catch up? No, you'd put the least talented player on a lesser team and teach him basic skills. Fair? Not necessarily but that's life. Same thing should be true in school. Instead of lumping kids by age and trying to teach them all the same thing, schools need to reach kids where they are and teach them what they need. But, again, until SOCIETY makes this a priority, the money and power won't be there to make it happen.

Okay, off my soapbox now.

This article really left a bad taste in my mouth, as you can tell.

[quote=ColinsMum
Some of the things Finland does well are: nine months' paid maternity leave (well, the first few months are specifically maternity leave, the rest can be split as the parents like); free full-time high-quality daycare and early education from the age of 8 months; teaching as a high status profession (very competitive to enter).

[/quote]

Yes, and all of that is supported by a 50% income tax rate. Is that something any of us want?